The N.F.L. playoffs have often provided nail-biting moments. And now the normally tedious negotiations for labor peace may do that too. With teams free to release players and sign free agents starting March 3, the pressure is on N.F.L. owners and the players union to reach a collective-bargaining agreement in order to avoid immediate disruption of the system that governs how contracts are structured and how players are released.

But with multiple sticking points between the owners and the players, Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said in an interview yesterday that he believed it would be well into March at the earliest, perhaps close to the league meetings that begin March 26, before the pieces were in place for a deal.

There is no immediate danger of a lockout because the current agreement does not expire until after the 2007 season. But without a new deal, the 2006 season would be the last with a salary cap. And how the issues on the table are resolved could affect competitive balance, the bedrock of the league's success.

The sides are grappling with complex economic matters, from how to divide local revenue, which has exploded for several large-market teams, to performance-based pay for players. Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw, the players union president, are scheduled to meet this week, and Tagliabue will meet with owners on Thursday in Orlando, Fla.

"Getting beyond the characterizations is some really deep disagreement on both economic and on system matters," Tagliabue said in a telephone interview yesterday. "We've just got a lot of issues that we can't seem to get a breakthrough on."

Tagliabue said that the owners presented a proposal to the players union last week that estimated player costs per club would rise to about $155 million a year by 2010. Even though teams share equally in the revenue from national television contracts and other media revenue, that figure per club is only about $135 million a year, well below player costs, Tagliabue said.

That is an especially significant problem for smaller-market teams - like Green Bay, Jacksonville and Kansas City - who do not generate the lucrative local revenue streams from stadium naming rights and luxury suites that teams like Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia do. The Giants and the Jets, who are building a stadium together, are also expected to enjoy that windfall when their stadium is complete.

The internal debate among owners and the question that most deeply affects negotiations with the union is how much of that local revenue must be shared and how much of the total football revenue, which includes the national television contract, should be paid to players.

The Washington Redskins' owner, Dan Snyder, recently lavished lucrative contracts on two assistant coaches that dwarf the contracts of some head coaches. Small-market teams fear that cash-rich teams like Snyder's will gain a competitive advantage if the escalating local revenue is not shared, paralleling the situation in major league baseball.

Upshaw is most troubled by high-revenue teams who devote less than 50 percent of their revenue to player costs. Over all, Upshaw wants a new deal to guarantee 60 percent of total football revenue for players leaguewide.

"They use it on places, not on players," Upshaw said of the spending habits of some high-revenue teams. "We're not saying there should be a cap on coaches, we're not saying they don't need their facilities. But you can't spend it all over there and not spend it on players, because we're responsible for all those other things."

The union and the owners cannot even agree on whether the owners must decide how to divide local revenue before a new labor pact can be reached. The union says they must, so players know how much revenue is available before agreeing to a designated percentage of it. But Tagliabue said that it was impossible to get owners to make a decision about how costs should be shared if they do not know what player costs will be.

Tagliabue said owners had a better understanding of cost issues relative to a franchise's market size, and recently the sides agreed that the dollar figure for the salary cap would be set for three years, instead of a new cap being announced each February. That, everyone feels, should help teams plan contracts better.

Still, Tagliabue said that recent conversations had been "one step forward, two steps back." And Upshaw has said that if an agreement is not reached by March 3, players will be less inclined to sign one because they would be in position to have an uncapped year in 2007. Upshaw says that getting the cap back once it is gone would be even more difficult than reaching an agreement in the coming weeks.

"We're not making progress," Upshaw said. "But I am not going to accept a deal just for the sake of having labor peace. It's not worth it to me. The deal has got to be fair."

pikesome

01-25-2006, 04:02 PM

Still, Tagliabue said that recent conversations had been "one step forward, two steps back." And Upshaw has said that if an agreement is not reached by March 3, players will be less inclined to sign one because they would be in position to have an uncapped year in 2007. Upshaw says that getting the cap back once it is gone would be even more difficult than reaching an agreement in the coming weeks.

I love football in all its glory but I am really worried about the prospect of no salary cap. I've lost respect for most of the other sports over the imbalance between the payrolls of various teams. It is also one of the reasons I don't follow college football very close, a handful of schools monopolize the available personnel due to many factors but it boils down to the fact that some schools will almost always contend and others will never. If the NFL goes uncapped it will not go back before the damage is done. I have no interest in watching Dallas, Washington and the NY teams dominate. I can find something else to do.

teedubya

01-25-2006, 04:40 PM

if the NFL loses its salary cap, and the uberrich teams are able to go Steinbrenner... the NFL will lose its appeal to millions... thus many teams will go bankrupt, or at least severely cripple many teams.

Chiefs Express

01-25-2006, 04:48 PM

if the NFL loses its salary cap, and the uberrich teams are able to go Steinbrenner... the NFL will lose its appeal to millions... thus many teams will go bankrupt, or at least severely cripple many teams.

I think some of the teams will just close shop if the salary cap goes away.

In my opinion there is no reason to pay the players millions of dollars to play a game. I love football and the action involved with it, but if the cap dies so does the game.

Mecca

01-25-2006, 08:32 PM

It's sad, the NFL get's everything working like it's suppose to work. Then Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones wanna completley screw it up because they have more money.

HMc

01-25-2006, 09:55 PM

I thought that the CBA stated that, by defenition, player costs were to only run to about 64 percent of revenue? Now i realise the CBA is what they're attempting to negotiate, but now he's saying that players will cost 155 million in 2010, and thatthe revenue will only be 130? Don't increase player salaries so effing much!

The cap and FA is what have made it the number one sport IMHO. I think dynasties created by bank accounts are boring.

Mecca

01-25-2006, 10:00 PM

I thought that the CBA stated that, by defenition, player costs were to only run to about 64 percent of revenue? Now i realise the CBA is what they're attempting to negotiate, but now he's saying that players will cost 155 million in 2010, and thatthe revenue will only be 130? Don't increase player salaries so effing much!

The cap and FA is what have made it the number one sport IMHO. I think dynasties created by bank accounts are boring.

The amount of revenue the teams are making is increasing faster than the number of the salary cap. So teams aren't spending as much of their revenue on players as the players union originally thought.

If the players want 64%, the league has to do something because a team like the Chiefs doesn't generate enough money to deal with that right now.

There in lies why the CBA is having problems passing. The bigger market owners don't want to share their local revenue to put all the teams on an equal playing field again.

cdcox

01-25-2006, 10:06 PM

Historically, owners have always acted for the good of the league, even when in the short term it may have hurt their particular team. That vision has ensured competitive balance in the NFL, which has been the biggest advantage that pro football has enjoyed over the other sport leagues. Owners like Snyder and Jones are tending to move away from that ideal. I think that if the owners could come to some equitable agreement on local revenue sharing, a deal with the players would follow quickly thereafter.

I think 60% of a team's local revenue should be put into the same pot as the TV money and split equaly between all teams. The salary cap should be something like 60% of that pool. I bet the final deal will look very close to this, but we'll have to go through months of posturing to get to that point.

jspchief

01-25-2006, 11:17 PM

They could clear up a lot of cap space for veterans by implementing a rookie salary scale. The fact that Alex Smith is one of the highest paid QBs in the league is absurd.

If f*ckheads like Jones and Snyder mess this up, they should be assasinated.

KCBOSS1

01-25-2006, 11:43 PM

I agree with the rookie salary scale as well as limited signing bonuses. Let these guys prove themselves for at least a year, if not two.

I used to love baseball. I was a huge Royals fan....traveling to watch a series with Brett, Wilson, White and these guys....it was great. But now KC, Toronto, Colorado, etc. are semi-glorified farm teams. It has ruined baseball. There were close to as many in attendance if not more at the Springfield, MO Cardinals games this year than Royals games. It's pathetic. No cap....football's ruined.

Mecca

01-25-2006, 11:51 PM

They could clear up a lot of cap space for veterans by implementing a rookie salary scale. The fact that Alex Smith is one of the highest paid QBs in the league is absurd.

If f*ckheads like Jones and Snyder mess this up, they should be assasinated.

Considering the average NFL players career is 3 years, I would imagine alot of them not being cool with a rookie salary scale. I could see alot of comments like "alot of us get once chance at a guarenteed payday now they want to take that."

chief52

01-26-2006, 12:02 AM

They could clear up a lot of cap space for veterans by implementing a rookie salary scale. The fact that Alex Smith is one of the highest paid QBs in the league is absurd.

If f*ckheads like Jones and Snyder mess this up, they should be assasinated.

Absolutely...Bust like Ryan Leaf and many others walked away with loads of cash and had no business even being in the league. I support the players, but the rookie cash can be too crazy.

jspchief

01-26-2006, 08:04 AM

Considering the average NFL players career is 3 years, I would imagine alot of them not being cool with a rookie salary scale. I could see alot of comments like "alot of us get once chance at a guarenteed payday now they want to take that."Yea, but consider the guys that are currently part of the union that are voting on it.

1. They already got their first payday. If they were going to hit that rookie jackpot, it's already happened.
2. They stand to gain the most from it, because it frees up money for their next payday.
3. How many 5 year vets making the minimum care if the next Ryan Leaf becomes a billionaire?

Something like this should pass with flying colors. I don't know what would turn existing players off from it.

KCTitus

01-26-2006, 08:39 AM

That is an especially significant problem for smaller-market teams - like Green Bay, Jacksonville and Kansas City - who do not generate the lucrative local revenue streams from stadium naming rights and luxury suites that teams like Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia do. The Giants and the Jets, who are building a stadium together, are also expected to enjoy that windfall when their stadium is complete.

The internal debate among owners and the question that most deeply affects negotiations with the union is how much of that local revenue must be shared and how much of the total football revenue, which includes the national television contract, should be paid to players.

The Washington Redskins' owner, Dan Snyder, recently lavished lucrative contracts on two assistant coaches that dwarf the contracts of some head coaches. Small-market teams fear that cash-rich teams like Snyder's will gain a competitive advantage if the escalating local revenue is not shared, paralleling the situation in major league baseball.

Odd, this article comes on the heels of a thread from yesterday where many here didnt think it was a big deal and that Tags, by expressing concern, was just trying to exert more control over the league.

This issue needs to be addressed or the Chiefs become the Royals and the NFL suffers as a whole.

I hope this doesnt happen, but it wouldnt suprise me in the least.

Chiefnj

01-26-2006, 08:51 AM

If smaller market teams want to share local revenue, they should have to do everything in their control and power to increase local revenue - build suites, naming rights for the stadium, etc.

jspchief

01-26-2006, 09:01 AM

If smaller market teams want to share local revenue, they should have to do everything in their control and power to increase local revenue - build suites, naming rights for the stadium, etc.You think they don't? What team wouldn't want to add suites and sell naming rights? Hell, they would be even more inclined to do it now when they don't have to share the revenue. Don't you think there's a reason certain teams aren't already cashing in on it?

Some cities don't have the customers to fill the 300+ luxury suites that DC has. Some cities don't have the corporate presence to justify selling the naming rights. What the hell is Arrowhead going to be named? Hallmark Field?

I don't know that teams should be forced to share local revenue like that. I don't have a problem with bigger market cities generating more money for their owners. I just don't want it to give them a competitive advantage. Maybe a luxury tax on a coaches cap would be a start.

jspchief

01-26-2006, 09:05 AM

Odd, this article comes on the heels of a thread from yesterday where many here didnt think it was a big deal and that Tags, by expressing concern, was just trying to exert more control over the league.

This issue needs to be addressed or the Chiefs become the Royals and the NFL suffers as a whole.

I hope this doesnt happen, but it wouldnt suprise me in the least.The problem is, the Wellington Maras of the league are dying. The guys that built this league into what it is had a different vision than what the Dan Snyders have. As more and more of the founding fathers die off, it's going to be harder and harder to keep it alive. Too many new owners are going to believe they can be the next Steinbrenner, without caring that they'll create the Marlins and Royals while they're at it.

KCTitus

01-26-2006, 09:14 AM

The problem is, the Wellington Maras of the league are dying. The guys that built this league into what it is had a different vision than what the Dan Snyders have. As more and more of the founding fathers die off, it's going to be harder and harder to keep it alive. Too many new owners are going to believe they can be the next Steinbrenner, without caring that they'll create the Marlins and Royals while they're at it.

Mara, Hunt, Rooney, et al...they understood how to build a competitive sports league. If the teams aren't competitive, there's not point to the competition.

ChiefsfaninPA

01-26-2006, 09:24 AM

Just in case some of us are not aware of it, the NFL is a business. The new breed of owners are going to be more like Sndyer than the Hunts. They only care about there bottom line, not the fans. If you want change stop supporting teams by going to the games. It is a hard concept for most of us to realize but without US there is no product.

jspchief

01-26-2006, 09:37 AM

Just in case some of us are not aware of it, the NFL is a business. The new breed of owners are going to be more like Sndyer than the Hunts. They only care about there bottom line, not the fans. If you want change stop supporting teams by going to the games. It is a hard concept for most of us to realize but without US there is no product.Any idea how contradictory your post is?

"They only care about there bottom line, not the fans."
"If you want change stop supporting teams by going to the games."

So as fans, we can affect their bottom line, and owners only care about that bottom line, but they don't care about fans? :shake:

We are the customer. To claim these teams don't care about the customer is absurd. Obviously there are other factors to running a business besides pleasing the customer, but that doesn't mean they simply don't care.

KCTitus

01-26-2006, 09:43 AM

Just in case some of us are not aware of it, the NFL is a business. The new breed of owners are going to be more like Sndyer than the Hunts. They only care about there bottom line, not the fans. If you want change stop supporting teams by going to the games. It is a hard concept for most of us to realize but without US there is no product.

LOL...yes, the NFL is a 'business', but what is the product? It's a competition between teams. People pay for the excitement of the competition. When the competition goes away, so will the fans. See MLB.

It is the leagues responsibilty to ensure that the teams are of relatively equal strength ensuring quality competition.

Chiefnj

01-26-2006, 09:44 AM

You think they don't? What team wouldn't want to add suites and sell naming rights? Hell, they would be even more inclined to do it now when they don't have to share the revenue. Don't you think there's a reason certain teams aren't already cashing in on it?

Some cities don't have the customers to fill the 300+ luxury suites that DC has. Some cities don't have the corporate presence to justify selling the naming rights. What the hell is Arrowhead going to be named? Hallmark Field?

I don't know that teams should be forced to share local revenue like that. I don't have a problem with bigger market cities generating more money for their owners. I just don't want it to give them a competitive advantage. Maybe a luxury tax on a coaches cap would be a start.

Why hasn't Arrowhead been upgraded in 30 years?

jspchief

01-26-2006, 09:50 AM

Why hasn't Arrowhead been upgraded in 30 years?Because upgrading a stadium is a several 100 million dollar venture. A team has to justify that expense. For a large portion of that 30 years, Hunt couldn't fill the cheap seats, let alone luxury boxes. Even now, when the team is enjoying the success of the last 15 years, there may be a question of whether they can fill enough boxes, or charge enough for their boxes to justify the expense.

Not only does a city like Dallas have the money to fill all those suites, it has enough money that they can charge a lot more for them. They have a huge corporate presence that gobbles up seats and suites and renews every year regardless of price or team performance. KC doesn't have that kind of money.

If it was going to be as lucrative for KC as it has been for Dallas, why wouldn't they have already done it?

Chiefnj

01-26-2006, 09:53 AM

If it was going to be as lucrative for KC as it has been for Dallas, why wouldn't they have already done it?

I was under the impression that when a small tax was proposed to help fund it, it was continually voted down by the folks that live in the area/state. Am I wrong?

ChiefsfaninPA

01-26-2006, 09:54 AM

Any idea how contradictory your post is?

"They only care about there bottom line, not the fans."
"If you want change stop supporting teams by going to the games."

So as fans, we can affect their bottom line, and owners only care about that bottom line, but they don't care about fans? :shake:

We are the customer. To claim these teams don't care about the customer is absurd. Obviously there are other factors to running a business besides pleasing the customer, but that doesn't mean they simply don't care.

I don't feel that a majority of owners don't care about the fans. But there are ones who don't. They just so happen to run the most lucrative franchises in the league and have a little more power because of that.

jspchief

01-26-2006, 10:01 AM

I was under the impression that when a small tax was proposed to help fund it, it was continually voted down by the folks that live in the area/state. Am I wrong?I'm not sure how that relates to the discussion. I thought you were saying the owners should be doing more to increase their local revenue. I don't know how the voters tie in.

And I'm talking about naming rights and suites, not new plumbing.

My point is, if Lamar Hunt could get the local revenue that Jerry Jones gets by adding suites, I think he would have already done it. But I don't believe that KC can keep up with the Joneses in that regard.

KCTitus

01-26-2006, 10:21 AM

My point is, if Lamar Hunt could get the local revenue that Jerry Jones gets by adding suites, I think he would have already done it. But I don't believe that KC can keep up with the Joneses in that regard.

I agree. KC couldnt sell the number of luxury boxes at the price Dallas/Washington/NY could.

Chiefnj

01-26-2006, 10:38 AM

I'm not sure how that relates to the discussion. I thought you were saying the owners should be doing more to increase their local revenue. I don't know how the voters tie in.

And I'm talking about naming rights and suites, not new plumbing.

My point is, if Lamar Hunt could get the local revenue that Jerry Jones gets by adding suites, I think he would have already done it. But I don't believe that KC can keep up with the Joneses in that regard.

It all ties in together. If a small market team wants to share in the corporate name of another stadium then they should have to sell their naming rights and toss it into the pot. If teams want to share in revenue from suites and seating rights then they should do the same. If the community is unwilling to support the team and the generation of suites, then maybe the team should move. It's a business. If you can get a better profit somewhere else, you move right?

Mr. Laz

01-26-2006, 11:03 AM

Considering the average NFL players career is 3 years, I would imagine alot of them not being cool with a rookie salary scale. I could see alot of comments like "alot of us get once chance at a guarenteed payday now they want to take that."

a case could also be made that those players don't really deserve a big payday in the first place.

getting a big payday because their talent wasn't evaluated right isn't a viable reason to get paid.

besides those rookie aren't the ones voting anyway ... it's the guys that are already IN the league and have earn the 2nd,3rd payday.

i imagine a rookie cap with no lowering of the complete cap is very feasible since it would be making the veteran players more money.

jspchief

01-26-2006, 02:00 PM

It all ties in together. If a small market team wants to share in the corporate name of another stadium then they should have to sell their naming rights and toss it into the pot. If teams want to share in revenue from suites and seating rights then they should do the same. If the community is unwilling to support the team and the generation of suites, then maybe the team should move. It's a business. If you can get a better profit somewhere else, you move right?I don't think anyone is suggesting that only the owners with a lot of local revenue chip in. I'm sure all owners would be expected to contribute. Some owners would obviously be contributing more, but I don't see how that's any different than any of the other revenue sharing that already goes on in the NFL.

The entire premise behind existing revenue sharing is to keep the league competitive by reducing the financial advantages of the teams that make the most money.

The only reason it has been suggested that local revenue be brought into the mix is because owners like Jones and Snyder are using that money to widen the competitive gap instead of just lining their pockets like they should be.

As for just moving to a city that generates more revenue... there's only so many cities in the US capable of bringing in that kind of money. Unless you want an NFL with only 10 teams, I don't think that's a viable option.

cdcox

01-26-2006, 04:22 PM

The only reason it has been suggested that local revenue be brought into the mix is because owners like Jones and Snyder are using that money to widen the competitive gap instead of just lining their pockets like they should be.

There is plenty of pressure from the players to get local revenue included in the fraction they are entitled to through the CBA. One way for the players to get that is removal of the salary cap. Then teams with lots of local money could funnel it to the best players and destroy the league. The other way to get local money into the hands of the players is to redistribute part of the local money and include that money in the calculation of the cap. All the pressure is on the owners because the players get an uncapped year before the CBA expires. If they play 2007 uncapped, it will be very difficult to put the cap back in place. It is critical that they get something done this off season.

cdcox

01-26-2006, 04:28 PM

Incidently this is not the first time that the issue of big market vs small market has come up. The first time was the splitting of revenues between the home and visiting team. Big market cities tended to have higher gate reciepts giving them a competitive advantage over small market teams with smaller gate reciepts. Gate receipt sharing was put in place in order to keep the league more competitive. The second time was for the national TV contracts. Big market teams could make far more money by televising the road games back to the home market. The big market teams gave up this advantage to land a nationwide TV deal, thereby ensuring the health of the league and the maintenance of competitive balance.